URL: https://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8237

Decision Maker: Executive Director Health and Social Care (Jenny Rollinson)

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose: The purpose of the report is to seek approval in accordance with Contract Procedure Rule 9.4.2.(1) to modify the contract with KeyRing for the Community Network Support Scheme as provided for within the existing contract at clause B1.2 by extending the provision to 30 June 2027.  

Content: The purpose of the report is to seek approval in accordance with Contract Procedure Rule 9.4.2.(1) to modify the contract with KeyRing for the Community Network Support Scheme as provided for within the existing contract at clause B1.2 by extending the provision to 30 June 2027.   (i)    That, in accordance with Contract Procedure Rule 9.4.2(1), the contract with KeyRing for the Community Network Support Scheme be modified by extending the term as provided for within the existing contract at clause B1.2 from 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027.   (ii)   That the Procurement Team be authorised to issue the relevant contract modification documentation.   ANY ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED:   Do Nothing: If the Council were to take no action and allow the Community Network Support Scheme contract to expire on 30 June 2026, the service would cease with no alternative preventative provision in place.   The scheme currently supports up to 30 individuals who, without this low?level intervention, would be at high risk of escalation into statutory Adult Social Care. Evidence from local commissioning experience indicates that once individuals present with increased or unmet needs, an average community?based care package from alternative provision would cost approximately £400 per person per week.   If all 30 individuals required alternative statutory support, this would equate to: £400 per person per week (on average) £20,800 per week for 30 people £624,000 per annum (based on 52 weeks)   By comparison, the cost of extending the KeyRing contract for the same period is £123,200 per annum.   This demonstrates that failure to extend the contract could expose the Council to over £500,000 of additional annual costs (£624,000 compared to £123,200), excluding any further costs associated with crisis responses, hospital admissions, safeguarding interventions, homelessness presentations, or supported accommodation placements.   In addition to the direct financial impact, the withdrawal of the service would remove an established early?intervention pathway that actively prevents escalation. Individuals currently supported to sustain tenancies, manage daily living, and maintain social connections may experience deterioration in mental health and independence, leading to increased demand for Care Act assessments, ongoing commissioned support packages, and unplanned interventions.   The do?nothing option therefore presents a clear risk of false economy. While it would achieve a short?term saving by ending the contract, this is likely to be significantly outweighed by the higher costs of statutory Adult Social Care provision and increased system demand. It would also undermine the Council’s preventative commissioning approach and financial sustainability objectives.   For these reasons, the option to do nothing and not extend the contract was considered and rejected.   Seek Competition (Quotation / Tender): Seeking competition through a quotation or tender exercise was considered but discounted at this stage. The current service is performing well, is meeting its core objectives, and is delivering demonstrable preventative outcomes for individuals who would otherwise be at high risk of escalation into statutory Adult Social Care.   The proposed contract extension is expressly provided for within the existing contract and does not represent a material change to the scope, nature or value of the service. As such, undertaking a new procurement exercise at this point would offer limited additional benefit and would risk destabilising a well?embedded and effective service that vulnerable individuals rely upon for continuity of support.   Undertaking a competitive procurement would also introduce avoidable service and delivery risks. Mobilisation of a new provider, or potential service change arising from a re?tender, could lead to disruption for service users, loss of established relationships, and reduced engagement, all of which increase the likelihood of unmet need and escalation into higher?cost support.   In addition, this extension period represents the final available extension under the contract and is intended to provide stability while commissioners undertake a wider review of community?based support services, including alignment with existing mental health floating support services and emerging reablement models. Prematurely tendering the service ahead of this strategic review could result in fragmented commissioning and would risk locking the Council into contractual arrangements that are not aligned with future service design.   For these reasons, seeking competition at this time was considered neither proportionate nor in the best interests of service users or the Council and was therefore rejected.  

Date of Decision: June 25, 2026